Share this

Gen. Stanley McChrystal is out commanding Afghanistan operations and Gen. David Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command, is in, pending Senate confirmation. Will the switch do anything to mollify President Obama's critics on the left who contend the Afghanistan conflict is unwinnable? Will Democrats in Congress aim to curtail or even cut off war spending? Can Republicans use the Afghanistan/Pakistan situation as a campaign cudgel against President Obama and congressional Democrats in the fall?

There was no question that he was qualified … but you don’t try to degrade or talk about your commander-in-chief. It happened, and we lost a good manager and a good soldier.

But the replacement was great. We have a man, a general who has made a tremendous track record. In fact, we talked about it today and we congratulated him on his assignment. I don’t know if he likes it or not, but he’s going there.

I think the stature of Gen. Petraeus is great to our allies. His caliber brings our allies and our troops together. I think Petraeus is well-respected; he’s the commander in charge of both places, and now he’ll be concentrating on Afghanistan. The move was great. But we just hate to lose a good man. But you don’t talk about your commander-in-chief like that.

I have a lot of respect for Gen. McChrystal and it was his plan, and I think they will continue to follow the surge they had there. Maybe on the side, he can be giving us advice, information.

So you would like to continue to cooperate with him on the side?

If he would like to do it, without his name being surfaced anywhere … I think he’s very knowledgeable. My understanding is that he was able to get along with Afghan leadership and people, and he seemed to be very valuable … we can’t lose sight of the fact that he was there for some time.

Are you satisfied with President Obama saying that the policy in Afghanistan will not change, despite the personnel change?

I’m satisfied with that. When we talked to Gen. Petraeus today, he said they’ll continue to do what they’re doing now. Any change is not expected, unless something happens drastically and he gets to the point that because of the circumstances that strategy has to be changed, but not now.

Some members of your party seem to be split on continuing the same policy in Afghanistan and also on the Petraeus decision. How do you feel about the members who oppose the surge and say we need to get out?

We’re spending a lot of money and some congressmen are saying we just need to get out … but you got to feel sorry for the people there. And we have a responsibility to be leaders. This is what we got, we pray to God that it works and if something happens, we may have to change.

I talk to members, you talk to members. Some of them are against the war. But when they see all these abuses and corruption and soldiers not getting these equipment … this is what has happened. And let’s just see how it works.

What was your reaction to President Obama's decision to accept Gen. McChrystal’s resignation?

I regret that Gen. McChrystal resigned. I think he would’ve done fine, he served the country very well and I know he would’ve done a great job continuing. With that said, I’m delighted with Gen. Petraeus. I can’t think of a better person in the world to deal with the insurgency problem than Gen. Petraeus. He’s probably the best qualified, period. I think it’s a spectacular choice.

Why is Gen. Petraeus the most qualified, in your opinion?

For three reasons. He has the respect of the troops, without question. He is one of the architects of the strategy to quell this insurgency. He certainly is familiar with its assets. And I think he has standing with the American public. In Vietnam, one of the lessons what we learned is that [we need] public support.

Gen. Petraeus is one I think who can communicate with the general public about what is at stake here, which I believe is an opportunity to wipe out permanently a sanctuary for Al Qaeda and the Taliban and help prevent another terrorist attack.

You say Gen. Petraeus has a good standing with the public, but will negative opinion lingering from the Iraq War affect that at all?

I don’t think so. People know not to confuse the war with the warrior. Iraq became unpopular and it’s been going on for too long. But Gen. Petraeus did not construct that policy, others did. His policy [has been] succeeding in winding down in Iraq. The vast majority of Americans will always respect the warrior.

How did Obama’s reaction affect his political standing with the public?

I’ll leave that to the political pundits. I’m most interested in preventing the next Sept. 11 … so I can’t comment on that. I’m hopelessly biased. I support the president, he’s a very good president.

(Regarding the Petraeus decision) I think it’s a decision that will turn the tide. It’s almost as if after D-Day, you had to choose another general to launch an invasion of Japan. Eisenhower would’ve been a good choice. And I think Gen. Petraeus will serve that position well.

What was your reaction to the decision to remove Gen. Stanley McChrystal and install Gen. David Petraeus?

The president did what he had to do and what presidents have done in the past when faced with similar situations – that is to assert the fundamental and critical fact that the chain of command goes from the military to the president. Our democracy is dependent upon that chain of command. Any time in the past that other presidents were in the situation and they did the same thing, and if we’re going to have a democracy in which the civilian leadership makes a decision and leads given the input from the military, this had to be done and the president did it.

And what about your reaction to Gen. Petraeus?

The general is familiar with the issues of Afghanistan and is in a position to carry on the task. This is a presidential decision and we have every reason to believe that Gen. Petraeus can carry out this task.

President Obama said this doesn’t mean a change in policy in Afghanistan – what is your reaction to that? Do you believe there needs to be a change?

My view is that our policy is inappropriate, that we will not be able to succeed with the program and with the policy in place, and that it’s time for us to leave Afghanistan and continue the civilian engagement there. Al Qaeda is the problem and our focus should be on that.

Since Gen. Petraeus was behind the surge strategy in Iraq and you oppose the current strategy in Afghanistan, are you dissatisfied with the decision to choose Gen. Petraeus?

The president made it clear [that Petraeus] will continue the present policies with which I disagree … I think those policies will ultimately fail.
If not the current strategy in Afghanistan, what do you want to see?

I do not believe that we will be successful in Afghanistan with a military strategy and that a different strategy based on economic and social development … and with a clear, laser-like focus on al Qaeda, that those three things [have] a greater chance of success. And the sooner we leave behind the military strategy, the better we’ll be.

We should all be grateful that Gen. David Petraeus agreed to take command in Afghanistan. No one else could have stepped in with a minimum amount of disruption to our efforts there. Yet, it did not have to be this way.

The president has every right to replace military commanders in whom he has lost trust. But trust is, at least in part, a choice. Gen. McChrystal said some things he should not have said, and his staff engaged in immature banter – all in front of a reporter. It was poor judgment. There was never any indication of insubordination or of policy differences, however. Even the president admitted that.

So it came down to personalities and political embarrassment. If every person in government who has made fun of Vice President Joe Biden is forced to resign, there will be few people left. The president argued that he did not make this decision “out of any sense of personal insult.” And yet it seems that he did. We know from the health care debate and other controversies that the President does not take criticism well.

The issue should be who can best perform the essential mission in Afghanistan at this time. The mission is key for the security of our country and the safety of our citizens. General Petraeus was the only alternative who could avoid a severe setback to crucial operations about to take place. We should all wish him Godspeed.

Regardless of who is in command, the success of our troops and our mission in Afghanistan remains our top priority. We respect General McChrystal’s performance in the field, but in his absence, no one is more capable of leading the way in Afghanistan at this critical time than General David Petraeus.

I am confident that Gen. Petraeus will provide the type of continuity in command that will allow our troops in the field to focus on their core mission. In selecting Gen. Petraeus, President Obama puts in place a leader who shares my belief about the difficulty of the task in Afghanistan, as well as a commanding general who has proven he can excel under the most difficult circumstances. Now, it is time to return our focus to creating conditions for success in Afghanistan.

The commander-in-chief has made it clear no one is bigger than the mission and nothing less than a unified effort in Afghanistan will get the job done. His decision to return General Petraeus to the battlefield provides not just continuity in philosophy, but tested diplomatic skill that is at the very center of a military strategy which hinges on progress in governance to sustain military gains. The strategy and the objectives must be the only agenda. That’s what really counts. American lives are on the line and America’s security interests hang in the balance. We cannot afford another minute of distraction. We’ve already seen in Marjah that impressive military gains cannot be maintained without effective local governance and Afghan ownership. This must happen to give the mission a chance to succeed.

What a difference a day makes. What a difference a decision makes. Yesterday, President Obama was hostage to General McChrystal who in turn was either a rogue or a martyr; today President Obama is a forceful leader standing up for the Constitution, the presidency, and the chain of command.

Now all eyes and ears will be on General Petraeus to show how this Af-Pak COIN strategy will defeat al Qaeda and keep Americans safe. Kandahar will be Petraeus' proving ground: because we must know whether we can defeat al Qaeda in the cradle of the Taliban. It is my fervent hope that success will inspire international cooperation and civic engagement so that the U.S. efforts can take a more diplomatic, less militaristic turn and our troops can come home.

The real problem with the Petraeus appointment has nothing to do with Afghanistan. It is that transferring Petraeus removes the only person who was doing any serious long-term strategic planning for security in the Persian Gulf in the face of the Iranian threat. Petraeus has been carefully nursing the expanding military capacities of US-friendly Arab countries in the Gulf and nudging them toward greater coordination and interoperability with each other and with us. He will be hard to replace in that role.

By choosing General David Petraeus as new commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, President Barack Obama ended the political distraction caused by General Stanley McChrystal's ill-advised Rolling Stone interview. It will be more difficult to end the strategic distraction that is the American involvement in Afghanistan.

We are fast closing in on July 1, 2010, one year before the date President Obama stated would herald the beginning of the decline in the American troop presence in Afghanistan. But to commit to begin troop withdrawals does not tell us much about the rate of withdrawal, the size of any residual force, or the mission of whatever forces remain.

The administration's preference is that U.S. forces should withdraw only at a pace that conditions on the ground justify. This either means that over the next 12 months the effectiveness of Afghan government forces will increase dramatically, both in absolute terms and relative to the Taliban - or that a large number of U.S. forces will remain fighting in Afghanistan for many years to come.

Everything about Afghanistan points to the latter as being more likely. The United States has embarked on a policy of state-building in a country with little tradition of a strong state. Making matters worse is that the Afghan government is riddled with corruption and the Taliban has the benefit of a sanctuary in Pakistan, which remains as much of a problem as it is a partner. Such a policy offers little likelihood of enduring results that would come close to justifying the enormous costs - all at a time the United States faces a looming fiscal crisis and mounting strategic challenges in Iran and North Korea.

The president was wise to act swiftly to replace his theater commander; he should act no less decisively in reviewing the policy. The focus should be on scaling back U.S. military presence, on what more can be done to induce some Taliban leaders and troops to reject working with al-Qaeda and join the Afghan political process - and on what is to be done to those who refuse.

Gen. McChrystal's intemperate interview may be one of the biggest blessings in disguise the Obama administration gets. Obama's swift, measured and decisive response to the Rolling Stone interview was pitch perfect. He reminded the public of the need for a civilian-controlled military. He reminded all of us that no one - not even a four-star general - is so special as to be irreplaceable. He framed McChrystal's errors in terms of military conduct and process and not personal squabbles. And he made it clear that he was holding McChrystal to the same standards as enlisted men and women. Finally! Obama asserted himself as a strong leader, and I think he earned a little more respect from the American public today.

I agree with Craig Shirley that today's action will do little to quell debate about the war in Afghanistan. However, given the difficulties of implementing the Afghan counterinsurgency, there may be a silver lining in having Gen. Petraeus, take over. After all, by most accounts, his counterinsurgency in Iraq was effective. I wish him all the best in his new role.

Nothing quells criticism like success. I hope that going forward, today's events help to allay dissension, thus allowing us to return our focus to the task at hand: successfully ending this conflict as quickly as possible.

It was unacceptable for General Stanley McChrystal to invite a reporter to hear his inner circle voice gripe about the Afghanistan mission and the key players in it. President Obama's decision to relieve him will have widespread support, and justifiably so.

Hopefully, Obama will also take the next necessary step and put a damper on his own team, who still voice their gripes about the Afghan mission to the media - albeit through press leaks and off-the-record comments. Otherwise, Obama is repeating McChrystal's mistake of not reining in his subordinates.

Obama should remove a major source of discontent, namely his public commitment to a July of 2011 withdrawal of U.S. forces. He should require his team to voice unqualified and consistent support for dissolving this deadline. Until Obama removes the deadline, he is not going to the heart of the problem. For now, he is sending a message that our efforts are half-hearted and tells the Taliban that they can win by out-waiting us.

With Gen. David Petraeus now assuming the command, Obama has a golden opportunity to justify his removal of the deadline for withdrawing. As he asserts his authority as commander-in-chief regarding McChrystal, he can also assert it to unify his national security team on this point. It would also assure the world that America keeps her commitments, in Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Obama’s policy in Iraq is “more of the same”….continuing the Bush policy.

Obama’s policy in Afghanistan is “more of more of the same”….continuing the Bush policy with more money and more troops.

The Obama/general photo-op just serves to remind everyone that the oil leak, the deficit, unemployment and a lousy economy are not the only thing Obama is failing at.

Does Obama really believe that yelling publicly at a general distances himself from his own failures? He thought that about yelling at BP ... still the oil flows. Crying about the Rolling Stone magazine article won’t fix the endless Obama occupation of Afghanistan.

Granted that Obama's critics find fault with everything he does, yet the very sober and reasoned comments from Democrat, Republican, conservative and centrist here at the Arena suggested Obama had no choice but to fire McChrystal. Having done so, appointing Petraeus does two things; continues current policy and mutes criticism from the right. The left is not at all happy with the policy Obama inherited, and/but wants it handled in a manner that deals with reality. That requires a clear designation of realistic and achievable goals. Petraeus' appointment provides an opportunity for that discussion, and we can only hope that it will occur. As far as using McChrystal's firing as a campaign issue, highly unlikely. Civilian control of the military is a universal principle, and everyone knew McChrystal's head would roll over this.

1. The switch certainly won't do anything to mollify critics who think that the war is unwinnable; recall that many of those critics were the same ones who endorsed MoveOn.org's "General Betray Us" campaign against General Petraeus.

2. Eventually, an effort will be made to curtail or cut off war spending, thus allowing the Taliban to regain power in Afghanistan, and possibly allowing al Qaeda to return to the country to use it as a base of operations.

3. Afghanistan is too important to become a purely partisan flash point. That having been written, if the Obama administration fails to handle efforts in Afghanistan properly, it cannot blame others for criticizing it in the same way that then-Sen. Obama criticized the Bush administration over Iraq and Afghanistan.

The president had no choice but to let Gen. McChrystal go for his insubordinate comments, but he did so with real class by praising McChrystals’s service to the country, and making it clear that he did not make the decision out of any sense of “personal insult.” Having Gen. Petraeus replace McChrystal was masterstroke; in Petraeus, the president puts into place a commanding officer with the experience, respect, and credibility needed to win the war in Afghanistan.

The commander-in-chief handled this well. Gen. McChrystal's behavior undermined what the president called "the civilian control of the military that is at the heart of our system." And the general's lapse in judgment should not force the president to alter his policy or approach to the war. Regardless of whether you think such a change in policy is necessary or desirable, it would be bizarre to argue that the White House, and the nation, should be forced to change course by one general's misconduct.

President Obama had no choice but to remove from his Afghanistan command. Insubordination, either within the military or between the military and its civilian command, is a no-go zone. General Petraeus, given his history, is a solid pick. Wars are controversial, and they become more controversial the longer they persist. Left or right, wars are costly, risky and occasionally necessary. It will be interesting to see if and how the Afghanistan timeline changes, but I am betting that there won't be much change of any kind.

The change in command will do nothing to allay critics of the nine-year nation-building exercise America has embarked on in Afghanistan, but that is not what the imbroglio of the past two days was about. It was about presidential leadership.

President Obama was right in relieving General McChrystal of his command. When all is said and done, setting aside the pomp and circumstance, the glory of the job and the creature comforts that come with the presidency, Obama may have just found out exactly why he was elected president. To make hard decisions.

This could be a pivotal moment in his presidency.

Harry Truman once said the job of president was to say yes and no, but mostly no. Obama may have just learned what Truman meant when he uttered those words.

There is no evidence that Gen. McChrystal was failing to implement the selected strategy properly, or that Gen. Petraeus disagreed with him about the prosecution of the war. As a result, changing the guy at the top isn’t likely to make much difference in our prospects. In other words, the problem is not the commander; it is the inherent difficulty -- maybe impossibility -- of the task we have set ourselves. The costs of fighting on in Afghanistan exceed both the possible benefits of victory or the consequences of withdrawal, and replacing the commander won’t alter that reality. Our best hope now is Obama tells Petraeus to conduct his own reassessment of our prospects, and encourages him to start looking for the exit.

It is still the president’s job to win the war and he is the one accountable to the American people. Nothing has really changed: the timeline is bad; by the military’s own estimate there are too few enough troops; and failure is not a good option.

President Obama had no choice but to dismiss McChrystal who clearly allowed his own ego to obscure his first duty as a military officer - to serve his civilian commander-in-chief. It was clear the disdain for the country’s civilian leadership filtered down from McChrystal and polluted the outlook of his senior staff. Presumably, Gen. Petreaus will clean house and several careers justifiably will be cut short.

In choosing Gen. Petreaus to take over Afghanistan, Obama selected perhaps the one general so universally respected that criticism from virtually all fronts should be muted. Petreaus saluted and accepted a presidential request that clearly will be even more difficult than his command in Iraq.

There could be another casualty in this episode, however. Hopefully the stupidity of one general and his staff will not prompt other military leaders to kill the messenger and shut out press coverage in Afghanistan. If the military is to have public support of their efforts in Afghanistan, the news media is the primary medium for winning that support. If events in Afghanistan disintegrate, the public equally deserves to have eye witness accounts from the front lines. The reporter did not force or trick McChrystal and his staff into making their ill-conceived comments. The reporter was merely the messenger. As a former war correspondent who was given extraordinary access to the front line troops and generals, I urge the officers in the field not to muzzle the messengers because of McChrystal’s mistake.

The president did what he had to do. It serves no useful purpose to attack the commander-in-chief for this tough decision. Republicans need to focus on the success of the mission and our troops. Petraeus is an excellent choice and Republicans should use the confirmation process to examine his strategy for success.

This is a brilliant political move. It largely insulates the president from criticism from the right. That said, it gives tremendous power to General Petraeus, who historically has not been shy about trying to shape the political process to achieve his policy preferences. Hard to see how Obama says “no” to any request Petraeus might make in the future. On the military front, Petraeus is also a pretty good choice in the sense that he is a subtle practitioner of counter-insurgency warfare. For those of us hoping to see a reduction of the U.S. commitment, this is not good news, but on the other hand, only Nixon could go to China, and maybe only Petraeus can oversee an end to our Afghan commitment.

Obama made the right decision in replacing McChrystal. In a single gesture, he burst a bubble that was proving both an unnecessary diversion and a distraction from pressing business at hand. And for the second time in two weeks, Obama showed that, protest though he might at the perceived power of cable television commentators, he will bend their way every time he is criticized. (Lest we forget, his last rehearsed "shows of anger" was supposed to have been the Oval Office speech and the announced BP "escrow" settlement.

Even as he was announcing the proper course of action, the president proved that he remains head of a team that cannot get its message and messaging straight. Minutes before the p resident spoke, MSNBC said it had four sources confirming that Obama had "relieved McChrystal of his command." The Washington Post put the news out in its instant alerts.

Yet, among the first words out of the president's mouth were that he "accepted" the general's "resignation."

Really?

Obama conveyed another messaging problem. If he was correct when he asserted that General McChrystal did not disobey any of his orders and that the change in generals did not constitute a change in policy, what did Obama mean when he said "divisions" in his team? In sending David Petraeus to head the American effort in Afghanistan, Obama, like James K. Polk inadvertently did when he ordered General Zachary Taylor into Mexico and Harry S. Truman did when he pulled Ike out of retirement to sent him to NATO, may have have selected more than a general, but a presidential successor. But in what year and under which party label?

We look forward to the president and his new general outlining the contours of American policy in Afghanistan and what constitutes "victory" there.

President Obama will likely decide Wednesday whether Gen. Stanley McChrystal should keep his job as commander of Afghanistan operations. Vice President Joe Biden - a key source of ridicule in Rolling Stone by the general and his staff - will no doubt weigh in. The veep dissented last fall from McChrystal's strategy of sending more troops to Afghanistan, arguing instead for more remote drone strikes and stepped-up diplomacy. Biden has also been vocal about the need to withdraw a substantial number of troops from Afghanistan by mid-2011 while military commanders have argued for keeping options open depending on circumstances on the ground at the time.

Will the views of Biden, special envoy Richard Holbrooke, Ambassador Karl Eikenberry and others now get a second look? Would keeping McChrystal on lock in the current strategy but keep the general and his command structure on a shorter leash to implement it? Will President Obama look weak if he doesn't fire Gen. McChrystal? Or should the president look past their lack of personal chemistry and let the general continue because they largely agree on policy?

President Barack Obama has named Gen. David Petraeus, the head of U.S. Central Command, to replace Gen. Stanley McChrystal – putting a general well-known throughout the world for his work in Iraq in charge of the mission in Afghanistan, POLITICO has learned.

Does the concept of media training not exist in the military? Aside from the issue of disrespecting the chain of command, the question is whether it was pure hubris by the part of General McChrystal or a complete lack of media savvy. The media and journalists can be very effective at making interviewees feel comfortable, at ease, and in the mood to let it all hang out. In the moment it feels good, but the aftermath is not fun.

The issue of media training should in theory be irrelevant in the military. This is an organization that has a tight chain of command that demands a tight-lipped body. However beneath the uniform, these individuals are only human and as such, the second line of defense for preventing these types of incidents should be some top notch media training and in particular knowing that nothing, is ever off the record

Have we really gotten to a point where unacceptable actions have no consequences? Doesn't anyone take any responsibility for anything anymore? The president should relieve General McChrystal of his command. While the general is entitled to his views, the appalling lack of judgment demonstrated by his actions, and his lack of respect for the civilian command structure to whom he reports, warrants his removal.

This is not about whether President Obama is an effective commander-in-chief or whether his Afghanistan strategy is sound. This is about General McChrystal's conduct.

It's a shame that someone with such a distinguished record of service to our country has done this to himself. But he should have known better.

Hard as it may be, I think it would be powerful for the White House to downplay this today - no photo release, no readout, no leaks...and for the president to say, "I'm sure you feel terrible - and I'm more than displeased. Don't do this again...and I forgive you. Now, give me an update on our plans." That would show remarkable restraint and contrary to what some are saying, it would not make him look weak. The power of graciousness is strong.

President Obama has every right to fire Gen. McChrystal — it’s certainly well-deserved, if not for insubordination, for sophomoric judgment. When you accept your military commission, you abandon your right to public free speech. Civilian authority cannot tolerate public criticism of the commander-in-chief. That said, this is an opportunity for President Obama to show he is the responsible leader, the grown-up in the room. Gen. McChrystal isn’t the only officer who can lead this mission, but he’s probably the best and still the most likely to succeed -- and a successful mission in Afghanistan is most important here. President Obama will not look weak for looking beyond McChrystal’s wayward remarks; he’ll look focused on the mission. The president needs to tell everyone — both military officers and the chattering members of his own administration — that they have a plan, and now is the time to shut their pie-holes and execute it.

The vice president's problem has always been the gravitas gap; he is a very intelligent and well-informed man but terminally windy. This sets him up for ridicule which is not an asset for a politician. Holbrooke's problem is his vaulting ambition, towering arrogance, and resting on the laurels of his role in the Dayton Peace Accords. These are guys you can legitimately gripe about but not to a freelancer from a stoner publication. My God, what were McChrystal and company thinking?

No general is indispensable; the principle of civilian control over the military is. The general must go. But the Afghan strategy is the president's -- see above -- so a change in command in the theater of operations needn't amount to a shift in policy. Those are separate matters.

The entire situation reminds of that classic "Godfather " line uttered by Al Pacino's Michael Corleone: "Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer." Look for President Obama to do the same with General McChrystal.

It may not just make military sense for President Obama to retain General McChrystal. It may make political sense, as well. The reason: if the conflict in Afghanistan keeps heading south, then responsibility for its failure, it could be argued, will no longer rest just with the president who devised the strategy, but with the general who seemed more interested in shooting off his mouth than in getting the strategy right.

If, however, the conflict turns a corner and we are able to leave the country on a high note, then the president will receive credit for not only putting in place a winning strategy, but for not letting a few ill-chosen words stand in the way of our long-term success.

Our first military commander, George Washington was always careful to defer to the Continental Congress even when he thought the Congress was clueless. Which it often was.

Washington established the tradition of military deference to civilian authority and he was a better man and general than Stanley McChrystal. And even if General Washington was privately contemptuous of the politicians in Philadelphia, he wouldn't be stupid enough to grant Rolling Stone access to his inner circle. The president can't win a war with a commander who is so openly disdainful of the commander-in-chief, the vice president and two senators, John Kerry and John McCain who have served honorably in the armed forces.

General McChrystal has undermined the authority of the commander-in-chief and an important American tradition. It's time for new military leadership in Kabul.

President Obama is in a difficult position. The Aghan "surge" never was very promising: Karzai is too unreliable as a partner, and al Qaeda terrorists can operate elsewhere even if we subdue them in Afghanistan. Moreover, the president's decisions to set a timetable for withdrawal and commit fewer-than-requested troops made the escalation even less promising - these decisions may have been politically necessary, but sometimes compromises leave you too far short of what's needed to get the job done. Finally, round-the-clock media attention makes it hard to sustain controversial military operations through the inevitable rough patches. Maybe the current policy will succeed with enough time, but the public may not have the patience to wait and see. In short, how do you rescue a policy that was flawed, either for being too ambitious or not ambitious enough?

The politics of the Afghanistan war probably make it too late to increase our commitment. Staying the course may allow the president to look strong, but it's unlikely to be successful in the end. It's time to move in the direction of the dissenters from the current strategy and employ an approach that can protect us from terrorism and not bog us down in an unwinnable war.

The president ought to accept General McChrystal’s resignation. This is not the first time the general has overstepped bounds of acceptable conduct. He was publicly scolded after a similar incident in London last year. Certainly, a change in command combined with recent bad news from Afghanistan would justify a review and reassessment of the strategy in Afghanistan. The challenge in Afghanistan is harmonizing the current commitment of forces with the president’s desire for a clear exit strategy. Unfortunately, General McChrystal never really seemed to grapple with this issue, instead hoping to convince the president to extend the commitment this fall.

I continue to believe that McChrystal cannot serve effectively now that the world and those under his command know what he and his team think of their superiors in Washington (and especially the president). The challenges facing Obama are finding a replacement and figuring out what his strategy in Afghanistan should be. It is not every day that a piece that ran in an non-traditional magazine could result in a change in military strategy, but that is where we are.

Obama could of course, in a manner of Lincoln, overlook the contempt McChrystal showed civilians with whom he must deal, in the interests of winning the war. When word reached Lincoln that General Joseph Hooker had undermined other generals and suggested that Lincoln, whom he considered a weakling, be replaced by a military dictator, Lincoln kept him at his post because he considered him a general of ability. "What I ask of you now is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship," Lincoln told him.

If such were the situation on the ground in Afghanistan, Obama could afford to be charitable. That it is not constitutes another reason why, even if Obama wanted to be charitable, McChrystal has to go.

I think a bigger question is whether McChrystal would be capable of implementing the Afghan strategy in light of this (latest) round of polarizing comments. For the obvious reasons one of the biggest concerns of a democratic society is that its military be completely subordinate to its civilian, elected leadership. McChrystal's comments aren't insubordination precisely but they're too close to it. Moreover his alienation from the diplomatic portion of this effort makes it doubtful that McChrystal's continued presence would be a net benefit.

This doesn't rise to the level of General MacArthur's disregard for President Truman's orders during the Korean conflict but there are disturbing echoes. Truman removed MacArthur for disobeying a direct command. McChrystal hasn't done that but he appears to be presiding over a faction that shows little regard for the chain of command.

Beyond that, it almost appears that McChrystal was laying the ground work for an excuse if the Afghan surge -- the surge he begged, wheedled and pushed for -- doesn't work.

Obama will absolutely look weak if he keeps McChrystal around but that's not why the general should be removed. He should be removed because his comments were inflammatory to the point of undermining his capacity to lead and, more importantly, the regard of the soldiers stationed in Afghanistan for their commander in chief.

General McChrystal's poor judgment has given President Obama an important opportunity to enhance his political credibility and assert his dominance (and that of civilian authority more generally) over the Pentagon.

The best way to take advantage of the opportunity is not to fire and replace the general -- but to spank him and allow him to retain command with a clear understanding that the next time it will be the firing squad rather than the woodshed.

Firing the general gives President Obama much more public responsibility for the subsequent outcome of the war - without enhancing the chances for victory. Leaving a politically weakened general in place leaves President Obama the option of firing and replacing him should he want to change policy or if a more promising leader appears.

Beyond that, the reality is that Stan McChrystal is a good man and a good general. The president seems to know that. Grousing about colleagues and policy rivals is par for the course; everybody does it but it always looks bad in print. McChrystal made a stupid mistake: he trusted a journalist. This is something many people have done over time and it is almost always a mistake. It's unlikely that the general will repeat it.

However, McChrystal's actions undermined a mission for which hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers (including the Afghans) are risking their lives. He knows he done wrong and will no doubt accept the very public dressing down that the president, for the sake of his own authority as well as to ensure that the rest of the military learns from this unhappy episode, must give him.

No matter what is decided about General McChrystal, President Obama is not likely to implemented a shift in his Afghanistan strategy at this juncture. It has been only six months since Obama announced the troop increases, and those additional troops are still arriving in the country. This new phase of policy is only one-third of the way completed. It has not yet achieved significant progress. The Obama administration would be wise to start thinking about a Plan B, another option if the McChrystal surge strategy does not achieve significant results in the coming months.

McChrystal should be fired for exercising horrible judgment as a field commander. I don't mean judgment about the war, but about how to conduct himself as a general. The interview with Rolling Stone was a disgraceful display of ego at the expense of his country's interest and his commander-in-chief. It should be a pretty easy call for the president, who should emphasize that firing him does no signal any change in policy.

There is something very unsettling when a commanding general at a time of war publicly disrespects the commander-in-chief, the vice president and other high-ranking civilian authority in the media. While I disagree with the president on many issues including but not limited to his exit strategy for Afghanistan, I cannot condone the actions of General McChrystal and others who cooperated with the Rolling Stone article. I do not see how the president lets this stand, if in fact the story in true and accurate. The real trouble for the president however, is not a rogue general, it is bad policy.

In “Saving Private Ryan” the man was the mission. This is not Hollywood. This is Obama’s strategy - one that he took three months to decide. Presidents can change generals when ever they want. It comes with the job. After all the responsibility for defeating our enemies is rested in them. Not sure why Obama would want to change strategy since the troops have all just got there and we have only just started implementing the strategy.

If the president wants to rethink parts of his strategy he should jettison the pieces that are there just for domestic politics and hurting the cause of victory. 1) The timeline has got to go. Timelines need to be based on conditions on the ground not dates on the calendar: 2) The president gave the commanders in the field less troops than the number they said they need to win with less risk. He should rethink that decision and given commanders on the ground all the resources they need to win.

As the American economy seems to improve in fits and starts President Obama on Friday travels to Toronto for the G-20 Summit, where world leaders will focus on fostering a global recovery from the financial crisis. Colin Bradford of the Brookings Institution previews the G-20 Summit.

George Stiller (guest)
FL:

From my viewpoint after nine years of directing this war McChrystal wants out so that he can't be blamed his strategy failed.

By getting out now it becomes someone else's war and a shared failure. And while I understand his situation, McChrystal changed the game plan by turning a search for bin Laden into nation building and developed bases complete with long-term housing complexes rather than tents or temporary barracks.

McChrystal's war was built on the military industrial complex's long-term profit making of supplying a long-term war and building the infrastructure for nation building. So, now that our main man McChrystal has quit, the time has come not just to decide who should replace him, but whether the time has come for a complete economic and war strategy change.

Nine years of feeding our economy off two wars did not achieve why we sent our troops to the Persian Gulf. It is time to bring our troops home and stop feeding this government funded war economy that is funded on our growing national debt we owe to the banks and Chinese.

j foster (guest)
ID:

This includes a six-month moratorium on comments about Obama's incompetence until the administration feels it can proceed safely. A search committee will be formed to deal with the shortage of Nobel Prize winners available to consult with Obama in wars and crisis situations. If this shortage is not corrected the administration fears Obama may be forced to actually meet with the Non-Nobel Prize winners that he puts in charge of those events. General McCrystal will now only be commander in Afghanistan on alternating Tuesdays and Thursdays but will definitely will be relieved of his command some July next year or the other. A high-ranking veteran of the SEIU military wing that led the impressive assault of the home of a 13-year-old banker’s child is being considered for the alternative command position. Please check back for more breaking developments, depending on the president’s tee time today.

Phil Gonzalez (guest)
TX:

Biden and Richard Holbrooke? Right, let's fight a war based on what Abbott and Costello knows over McChrystal.

Both of these men were wrong then and they're still wrong today. Drones don't win over populations. They don't mix with the people. McChrystal know wars are won by troops in the field. Who will the Afghans side with the most -- drones or Talibans in the field?

If there's more Taliban in the field, occupying more ground than our troops, who own Afghanistan. The drones or the Taliban. Occupation win wars, not drones. Have we forgotten so easily how Russia fought the Afghans and lost? They fought a helicopter war, like we're fighting a drone war and they won no one over.

The Afghans have to see our troops. Our troops must be visible every where they look. How will drones break the will of the Taliban? They won't. How will drones convince the Afghans to side with the Americans over the Taliban? Troops in the field changes the mind of the next generation of Afghans toward life outside of Taliban rule. When we go to foreign lands, we face years and years of brainwashing about Americans. Our troops help to contradict what the people have been taught. Abbott and Costello should know that.

Tom Gregg (guest)
IN:

From the perspective of a retired soldier (US Army, Sergeant First Class, 9 years active duty, 19 years in the reserves) this one's a no-brainer. President Obama has to fire Gen. McChrystal.

Good order and discipline require proper supordination at all levels of a military organization. Whatever the merits of the general's criticisms — I suspect I’d agree with many of them — he was guilty of a serious breach of discipline. Whatever one thinks of Barack Obama, he happens to be the commander-in-chief.

All members of the armed forces, from slick-sleeve recruits to flag officers, have a legal and moral obligation to respect the office, if not the man. Disrespectful or contemptuous comments, publicly directed at the president or other high government officials by anyone in uniform, simply cannot be tolerated.

That many of the objectionable comments came not from the general himself but from his staff makes no difference. As the commanding officer, he bears the ultimate responsibility. That he is the top commander in Afghanistan, the man who is expected to set the example for his subordinates, makes his offense all the worse. I say this with profound regret, but for the good of the service Gen. McChrystal has to go.

Laura Halvorsen (guest)
FL:

While I can't say that I disagree McChrystal's observations about President Obama and Joe Biden, I can say that what he did not only breaks with protocol, but sets a very bad precedent.

The military depends on a chain of command - from the U.S. president down to the new recruit. In the civilian world, insubordination will get you fired. In the military, it can get you killed. If McChrystal sets an example by disrespecting his boss, then it's tantamount to giving his subordinates license to disrespect him and so on. If such dissention is made publicly through the media, it can have a damaging effect on foreign policy. Obama is already earning a "Nixon's List" reputation. If the meeting today focuses on how McChrystal's comments affect foreign policy, troop morale and the mission at hand - and not on Obama's ego - then the president will have struck the right note and McChrystal's removal will be inarguably justified. If it's only about how the comments affect Obama personally, then McChrystal's firing will appear politically motivated, regardless of the fact that it's justified.

Jeffrey Minch (guest)
TX:

President Obama has already blown the McChrystal challenge. When you are the commander-in-chief and learn that your theater commander has given an inteview to Rolling Stone --- Rolling freakin' Stone --- you don't even have to inquire as to the content of the article, you simply summarily fire him and appoint a successor.

The military is set up to apply an immediate succession plan in the event of combat losses. That is the ethos of the organization. Gen. McChrystal effectively fired himself and should be allowed to go peacefully into the dark night he has created. If President Obama were, in fact, a "commander" of any type, McChrystal would already be gone. Shame on the Pentagon and secretary of defense for not making that happen. Unfortunately, because of his own weak character President Obama has both demonstrated his own feckless inability to command and endangered the mission. The guy is unlucky and incompetent --- not a good combination for our times.

Kira Young (guest)
VA:

Our commander-in-chief has no choice but to fire McChrystal. This is the second time he has spoken to the media out of turn. President Obama cannot give him yet another chance here. I think he should send Gen. Petraeus in to fire this man.

Phil Southern (guest)
AL:

Firings, resignations, come-to-Jesus meetings, fireside chats, ring-kissing, and public apologies aside, there must be more than meets the eye here.

The comments made and events that have transpired are more than enough to get anyone fired, much less a general in the U.S. Army with such weighty responsibilities.

I can think of more than a few strategies the general might be following, and more than a few reasons to be doing so. The game is afoot undoubtedly, and there may or may not be much we can make of it for many years. I'm hoping our commanding general has a plan behind this, anyway. Otherwise it sounds and looks rather stupid regardless of a bystander's political leanings.

Dwayne Jones (guest)
OH:

If all the reports are accurate about how much counterinsurgency and counter-terrorism knowledge the general has, then I think you cannot waste that knowlege and talent.

He certainly can not be put back in charge of the troops in Afghanistan but to have him resign or assign him to a desk in Washington is certainly a waste of knowledge and talent. Some people don't need to be in the big chair cause they don't know how. I don't have a problem with him disagreeing or disliking policies of the administration or officials of the administration but if you and your staff show such lack of judgment then move them to where their talent best benefits the country and the mission over there.

J.P. Hogan -Blogger- (guest)
CT:

The problem is SCOTUS, POTUS? The problem is POTUS, SCOTUS? Can we amend? I have yet to read an exemption for military personel in recent rulings by SCOTUS around First Amendment speech.

If Obama/Clinton actually shifted away from their imperialistic neocolonialism for Afghanistan and Pakistan back to "war on terror" posture would Gen. McChrystal's "comments" amount to "assistance to terror agents" so decided?

If president shifts his posture to "war on terror" away from "overseas contingencies" of his neocolonialism and its roots back in his early days in Manhattan of "choosing his friends carefully ... Marxist professors ... punk rock poets ... and neocolonialists" will the recent SCOTUS rulings give the president an effective "gag" on media criticism of his foreign and domestic policies?

M Barnhill (guest)
CO:

"The interview with Rolling Stone was a disgraceful display of ego at the expense of his country's interest and his commander-in-chief." I think Professor Calimiris of Columbia nailed it.

It was boyish egos on display in the worst way. It seems General McChrystal and some of his staff got star struck at the idea of being in that "cool" magazine, Rolling Stone, and just had to show the writer how hip and irreverent they were. They are soldiers but they are cool soldiers. A very sad and nearly inexplicable incident in the life of a brilliant general who is known for his generosity and diplomacy.

Were they drunk? Were the troubling comments made at one time or were they spread across the whole month? I can see McChrystal doing a near sepuku of public apology and staying if President Obama deems him necessary to the war effort. According to the Brookings Institute, he has an excellent relationship with President Karzai and with his British counterpart in Nato. Hamid Karzai has expressed his support for McChrystal.

Herb Griffin (guest)
AL:

Seemingly nobody has bothered to question even one word of the Rolling Stone article. Every word has been accepted at face value without the slightest doubt.

I suspect that most comments are coming from people who have never bothered to read the entire article and who are relying on what they are reading and seeing from news outlets. The author casually inject conclusions that are cleared based on his personal opinions and are not supported by any facts in evidence in his article.

Dave Logan (guest)
NY:

In the words of Thomas Jefferson,
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."

peggy long (guest)
NM:

Sad, but true. No one in any articles writtten, or any media commentary, has dispelled the facts about President Obama, VP Biden and Holbrooke that Gen. McChrystal has spoken about.

The only criticism is that the Rolling Stone is the improper forum for his views to be known. If one cannot respect the chain of command, then it is time to move on. Let someone else deal with the incompentency of this government.

Keith Platt (guest)
NJ:

I think we can all (for the most part) agree that McChrystal's observations on Holbrooke and Biden. That being said, the United States military is the greatest the world has ever known because of its adherence to the chain of command.

When I was in the Navy, total quality leadership (TQL) was the newest thing. But, as my chief petty officer would often say, the chief is the chief. In other words, you can have all of the input you want, but the boss is still the boss and the boss in this case, unfortunately, is President Obama and his administration. The military simply cannot function unless the rules against rank insubordination are applied equally. Therefore, Obama must relieve the general of his command and must do so swiftly. He cannot dither on this as he has dithered on setting the Afghan policy or in dealing with the oil spill.

Gary Wagner (guest)
IN:

Obama doesn't have much choice but to fire him. When he does, he should apologize to the country for being a moron, a terrible leader, and a horrible president.

Obama was never willing to fight this war so he should fire the general and pull our troops home - immediately. He should just surrender and issue an apology to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. He should issue an apology to all the families of soldiers that died because he made them stay without allowing them to win. This war against terror will have to wait until we have a president willing, and capable of winning it. Obama is neither.

Lee O (guest)
CA:

Obama needs to publicly rip the epaulets off McChrystal's shoulders and break his sabre over his knee. I am a fan of the general, but this sort of reckless insubordination cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. Rolling Stone? Really?

Richard Careaga (guest)
FL:

General McChrystal's career is over. His trajectory was extraordinary; he rose in rank by defying conventional wisdom.

He became a favored bad boy prodigy indulged by an establishment that had the smarts to recognize the need for new arms for new times. Then he became the establishment but forgot to stop trash talking.

Douglas Rose (guest)
IL:

The president is facing a stalling economy with no tools in his bag (re: Orszag is getting out before the roof caves in).

The VP, Joe Biden, has an engagement program that will set the stage for significantly less supplemental expenses and less exposure for bad news (read casualties) and still keep the pressure on Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Iran. This looks like a policy shift in the making.

I expect the president to appoint a new general who is not identified with this current expanding engagement and whose orders are to minimize casualties and get the numbers down to pre-McKiernan. This should make the president less vulnerable to accusation of deafness from his liberal supporters.

Biden's recommendations should focus our remaining efforts and make Afganistan back burner issue for the November election and more importantly for the 2012 where a failure in Afganistan will derail the president's reelection. Cuts in Defense spending a la Bill Clinton will be desperately needed to fund any domestic recovery which will be crucial to defeating attacks by Republicans of economic stagnation. If this isn't a calculated move by the president I would be greatly surprised. In 2012 it will all hang on the economy and this sets the stage

John Read (guest)
OH:

If the president lets him off the hook and sends him back to Afghanistan with a wrist-slap, the gap between the diplomats and the military will widen even more.

The COIN strategy, whereby soldiers -- trained fighters -- are asked to be house-by-house, village-by-village ambassadors for the American way of viewing the Muslim world isn't working and McChrystal's frat boy antics exemplify why it isn't: McChrystal and his posse are warriors, not community organizers like his boss once was.

The Paris episode in the Rolling Stone piece reminded me of the opening scene in "The Great Santini" when Robert Duvall and his band of drunk, rough-and-tumble Marine fighter pilots wreak havoc at the O-Club dance to the astonishment of the goddy-two-shoes Navy officers and their wives. That was hilarious; this isn't.

M Barnhill (guest)
CO:

McChrystal out, Petraeus in? The contempt McChrystal displayed for the Afghanistan war team was too much. Will the Army have anything to say to him?

Woody Baird (guest)
AL:

Having spent seven and a half months in Afghanistan with a special operations unit and working closely with the Northern Alliance, I will tell you that nothing the last administration or the current administration is doing in Afghanistan is going to work.

The Afghan people as a whole are 2,000 years behind the rest of the world culturally. Education is the key to making their country productive. Having any politician, especially one with absolutely no clue lke Barry attempting to establish policy over experienced military personnel is lunacy. Until the rules of engagement are changed in favor of our soldiers and our soldiers are allowed to do the job they were trained to do, we are wasting our time, money and American lives. Politicians, especially liberal politicians, do not have the nerve or stomach for a properly run counterinsurgency operation. I love to read the post from these armchair critics who have never set foot in the field, much less some place like Afghanistan.

Marcam LaVecchia (guest)
CA:

While President Obama made the right decision to relieve McChrystal of his duties, can we please dispense with the hyperbole? It was a softball issue that had little chance of being handled poorly.

To use this as a vehicle to suddenly suggest that Obama has proven he is a great leader and defender of the Constitution is like saying the decision to take new Coke off the market suggested the Coca-Cola Company had tremendous foresight and leadership in the soft drink market.

James Ward (guest)
CA:

Cornelius Flavius Silva: A victory? What have we won? We've won a rock in the middle of a wasteland, on the shores of a poisoned sea.

(from Masada) The Patriot ... another talented military officer consumed by a inexperienced, foolish and thoughtless civilian who fails to understand that soldiers exist to kill the enemy not entertain the politicians.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.